Spike

Oh boy, people really do swallow what the media shovels into the feeding through. I never read football 'news'; poor sources, indirect quotes, sensationalism, bias, convenient half-truths, and 'opinion' pieces. The football media and punditry is truly the bottom-of-the-barrel tripe that is hocked out to the lowest common denominator for page views and sales. What I do like is watching pundits like Gary Neville discuss the actual games, non of the 'backroom' nonsense. I don't care about the backroom, I care about the game.

I'm not one to post formations often but something needs to change. Personally I believe two players need to be a license to do whatever they want, freedom of defending and structure. Hazard and Fabregas would be my two. Perhaps the freedom will ease the burden of pressure and allow them to approach the game in the manner they want to. Perhaps something like this? It isn't that different from the 4-2-3-1 formation really... Hazard - A Not Shit Striker - Wilian Fibreglass Mikel - Matic

It changed. Sometimes a 4-4-2 diamond, sometimes a 4-3-3. Drogba - Anelka Lampard Malouda - J.Cole Ballack Cole - Terry - Alex - Ivan Cech Malouda - Drogba - Kalou Ballack - Lampard - Essien Cole - Terry - Alex - Ivan Cech If I may be so bold, it wasn't a really good team. Drogba, Malouda, Terry, A.Cole, Lampard, Anelka and Ivan had ridiculously good seasons. To the point of over-performing. Carlo Ancelletti relied on individual brilliance from the players so much. He is a man motivator, when the players are playing well, he will get 200% out of them but when things go bad don't expect tactical masterclass.

Eh, it is just semantics. I think of Hazard as a forward, I think of Zidane as a MF. No biggie, it is just all different views of the same ocaen.

I'd say that Hazard has a lot more emphasis on attacking and scoring goals than Zidane ever did. Hell, Fabregas and Iniesta have played those positions but you wouldn't exactly call them forwards, would you? I'd be a lot more comfortable playing Zidane as a CM than Hazard, I'll tell you what.

I'm sure it's not 99%. It isn't like this guy is some incredibly famous footballer too.

Will he also reach Maldini's level? What about Buffon's?

Zidane was a midfielder and Hazard is a forward. SMH

Because it is something that many humans involve themselves in. Footballers are no different.

That doesn't take much. Haha.

I think he is completely useless from the bench. A figurative sponge that absorbs minutes that could be given to future hopefuls.

For fucks sake; this has annoyed me.

If you honestly believe that than I am shocked.

This is a lot like Schrodinger's Cat. Except the observant already knows that the cat is dead because if otherwise, Schrodinger would have mentioned it by now.

Jesus Christ, he isn't even online. That wasn't the basis of his argument, the basis was that he has seen a lot of games (which for some reason you don't believe him). That 'he doesn't play for Chelsea' was only a facet of his argument; literally a half sentence.

I just said this Just because an idea hasn't been mentioned doesn't mean it is automatically false.

1. Streams 2. You don't know if BlueLion has a friend that is from Nantes. You don't know that they don't regularly watch games together. 3. You don't know that BlueLion doesn't spend a lot of time in France or another place where they are televised. 4. You don't know that BlueLion doesn't have a subscription to a Ligue 1 chanel deal that he watches through a VPN. 5. BlueLion may not watch Nantes in particular, he may watch games like Marseille, Lyon and PSG when they play Nantes. You assume that BlueLion can only watch Nantes on TV. You assume he has no other means of watching Nantes.You quite simply don't know how or why BlueLion watches Nantes, you only assume. Just because an idea hasn't been mentioned doesn't mean it is automatically false. You have no proof, only assumptions that you've made based on incomplete information. Djiilobodju also plays for Senegal and has done so in the AFCON. If I know BlueLion he was also watched this man perform for his country, but I don't know that, it is only an assumption like what you have done. Let's say I have a box, it was given to me by a man. The man states 'Boxes can be opened by keys'. Now, he hasn't stated that this box is opened by a key, only that boxes can be opened by keys. Now, why would I immediately try to open the box with a key? I don't know that the box is opened by a key, all I know is that this is a box and I've been told boxes can be opened by keys. To immediately attempt to open the box with a key would be an assumption based on incomplete information given to me by another entity. This is what you are doing.

That isn't proof, that is an assumption made on conjecture.

I wouldn't. I'd change style first.

The three players you listed are notorious for being hot and cold.

That isn't the point. The point being I don't criticise or rate something that I haven't seen, used or know anything about. Until then it is just an assumption based on conjecture. For instance, I bought The Witcher, when it was released back in 2008. I didn't know if I'd like it but I didn't have an opinion on it till I played it. I bought the game based on what I knew about it; being it's a point-and-click RPG. I didn't know if I'd like it or not, that is impossible. Criticizing and reviewing a game without first hand experience is comparable to most forms of media, books, TV, film and even the ability of footballers

Nah, it'll be more like a 4-4-2, fam. Which is just a modified, 4-2-3-1, which I just a modified 4-3-3, which is just a modified 4-1-2-3, which is just a modified, 4-1-4-1, which is just a modified 4-2-1-3. Damn, formations are a little asinine. It's like the tactics and strategies employed are more important than a formation.

It's like having an opinion on a videogame you've never played.

I think people mix up the Black Panthers with the Nation of Islam a lot. I believe the latter was much more militant and aggressive.

Not so crazy. Maybe not the illuminati but they have passed some questionable legislation. The National Housing Act of 1934 essentially segregated blacks and whites, forcing blacks to stay in ghettos. People from certain areas were 'redlined' meaning that they were forbidden to take out bank loans and mortgages. What that meant was that black families couldn't move out of ghettos.